Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M.

Yumang

MIDTERMS

NATURE OF GROUPS - Deliberately formed groups, such as those created in

Theorists would mention the importance of the different
aspects to be included in defining what a group is.
The following are the important considerations
mentioned by Forsyth (2010) that must be present in a
group which came from the differing views of theorists.
Some would say that one is more important than the other:
1. Communication
2. Mutual dependence
3. Shared purpose or goal
One unifying aspect however from among the differences of
what the group should be are the following:
1. A group requires at least two people (except for people
with extreme psychological disturbance, they cannot
be considered a group). A group is composed of
two or more people joined together.
2. A group is connected to each other or to one another.3.A
group’s connection is a socially meaningful one. That is
to say that their being together is not by accident nor
by circumstance but rather by social and emotional
bonds that are both meaningful.
From the above mentioned, a group is now defined as:
two or more individuals who are connected by and within
social relationships.
1. Two or more individuals
These are important considerations when we talk about
group as two or more individuals:
a. A group can range in size from two to thousands of
members.
b. Very small collectives such as dyads (two members)
and triads, (three members) are groups.
c. Very large collections of people
mobs, crowds or congregations are
group. (Simmel, 1902 as mentioned
Forsyth, 2010)
Some other findings from researches as mentioned by
Forsyth in 2010:
- Most groups tend to be relatively small in size, ranging
from two to seven in members (Mullen, 1987)
- Informal, spontaneously formed groups were small,
usually with two or three members
government or work settings were also small with 2.3
members (James, 1951)
- Majority of groups who ate in a cafeteria (especially
when crowded) in a college campus were in dyads
(Jorgenson and Dukes, 1976).
- Although groups come in all shapes and sizes, “they
tend to gravitate to smallest size, two” (Hare, 1976,
p. 215)
- A group’s size influences its nature in many ways, for
a group with only two or three members possesses
many unique characteristics simply because they have
few members.
- The dyad is, by definition, the only group that dissolves
when one member leaves and the only group that can
never be broken down into a subgroup (Levine and
Moreland, 1995)
- The members of dyads are sometimes linked by a
unique and powerful relationship – love, that makes
their dynamics more intense than those found in other
groups.
- Larger groups have also unique qualities: the members
are rarely connected directly to all other members;
subgroups are likely to form and one or more leaders
maybe needed to organize and lead the group.
- By definition however, all are considered groups.
2. Who Are Connected
From your experiences of group membership, you would
notice that there is some kind of commonality that binds
you to whatever group you are into. We call this as a bond,
an invisible one yet it keeps us “tied” to them. Some ties
might be so tight and some ties are just enough
and some are also loose or weak. Maybe this was one of
the words that you thought of. You see, our group
membership connects us to the other members of the
such as
group, and that, this connection to one or two members in
also a
a larger group are interconnected to one another and to
in
the other members of the group. As described by Forsyth
(2010),
“the members of any given group are networked together
like a series of interconnected computers.”

Page 1
BSY42 [2022-2023] Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
3. By and Within Social Relationships Group Characteristics
Please take note that as we define what group is, we
1.Interaction
mentioned that there are varying definitions from the
different theories and researches. If we read between the Cambridge dictionary will tell us that interaction means: “an
lines, what was common among the varying definitions is occasion when two or more people or things
the existence of relationship in all of the group membership. communicate with or react to each
To explain this further, Forsyth (2010) took note of the other”
following:
From this definition you would notice the requirement that
• A group is a collection of individuals who have must be considered for an interaction to happen, and that
relations with one another (Cartwright and Xander, is, the presence of two or more people. The second
1968) requirement is the use of communication as a means to
• A group is a social unit which consists of a number of reach out to the other person concerned.
individuals who stand in (more or less) definite status
Bales, 1950, 1999 in Forsyth, 2010 conducted an experiment
and role relationship in one another (Sherif and Sherif,
in his laboratory by watching them closely. These groups as
1956 pg.144)
mentioned are the naturally existing groups but some
• A bounded pattern of relations among members
groups are formed for this purpose. The results of his
(Arrow, Mcgrath & Berdahl, 2000 p. 34)
experiment would tell us that group interaction is as varied
It was further explained that “group relationships linked one as the human behavior in itself as he took note of the
member to another and to the group as a whole. They following findings:
define who is in the group itself, for groups, unlike networks
- Group members exchange information with each
who have boundaries.” (Forsyth, 2010)
other, through verbal and nonverbal communication.
This would tell us the contrasting differences of the link that - Group members got into arguments, talked over issues
binds in a group and that of business networks. and made decisions.
- They upset each other, gave one another help and
Unlike in a group, a husband and wife as an example,
support, and took advantage of each other’s
“usually have a stable but permeable boundary -
weaknesses.
sometimes stated but sometimes explicitly defined – that
- They work together to accomplish difficult tasks, but
differentiate between those who are within the group and
they sometimes slacked off when they thought nobody
those who are outside of the group.” (Forsyth, 2010) It was
would notice.
further explained in the following findings:
- Group members taught each other new things and they
- Group members show a common identity with one touched each other literally and emotionally.·
another. They know who is their group and who is not,
What were significant in above mentioned study as
and what qualities aretypical of insiders and outsiders
concluded by Bales, 1950, 1999 in Forsyth, 2010 in trying to
(Taifel, 1972).··This perception of themselves as
understand Interaction as an important quality in group
members of the same group – or social category –
were two basic types of interactions:
this social identity creates a we and us as well as a
sense of they (Abrams et al, 2005). A. Relationship interaction (socio- emotional
- Social identity can be thought of as “sum total of a interaction).
person’s social identifications, where the latter
Relationship interaction is defined as “actions
represents socially significant social categorizations
performed by group members that relate to or influence
internalized as aspects of self-concept” (Turner, 1985
the emotional or interpersonal bonds within the group
p. 527).·
including both positive actions (Social support,
consideration) and negative actions (criticism,
conflict).”

Page 2
BSY42 [2022-2023] Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
Thus, it is further explained that this pertains to the circular pattern based on two continua: cooperative-
interpersonal, social side of the group life. If some competitive and conceptual- behavioral
members of the group feel low and need support
Further, this circumplex model according to Forsyth (2010)
other members would offer help and try to cheer
brings to order the many goal- related activities that the
them up.
group undertake.
B. Task Interaction
McGraths model of group tasks spells out four basic
Task interaction is defined as “actions performed by group goals:
group members that pertains to the group projects,
1) Generating ideas or plans
tasks and goals.”
2) Choosing a solution

As this definition tells us task interaction is in contrast 3) Negotiating a solution to a conflict

with that of relationship interaction where the former 4) Executing (or performing) a task

encompasses all the behavior of the members of the

group that focuses mainly on the attainment of the
each of these basic categories can be further subdivided
work that has been entrusted to them.
yielding a total of eight basic goal-related activities:

From the common experiences of group work, it could

1) Generating. Groups that will concoct
be noted that members “coordinate and pool their
the strategies that they will use to
resources, skills and motivations so that the group can
accomplish their goals
make a decision, generate a product or achieve a
▪ (Type 1: planning task) or to create altogether new
victory.” (Forsyth, 2010)
ideas or approaches to their problem

As members were given work at hand, they strive to do ▪ (Type 2: creativity task)

the coordinating and sharing their own resources, 2) Choosing: Groups that make decisions about

talents and skills to be able to come – up with what is issues that have correct solutions

expected of them ▪ (Type 3: intellective tasks) or questions that can be

answered in many ways.
2. Goals ▪ (Type 4: decision-making tasks)
3) Negotiating. Groups that must resolve differences
If you search the online dictionary, goal means, the end
of opinion among members regarding their goals
toward which effort is directed. This definition would tell us
or decisions
that it is about the end-product by which we would like to
▪ (Type 5: cognitive conflict tasks) or resolve
achieve towards a particular direction.
competitive disputes among members.
Decisions are made towards a common goal. Members of ▪ (Type 6: mixed motives tasks)
each group learn to identify and solve problems. Creativity 4) Executing. Groups that do things, including taking
are developed and enhanced. Members learn how to part in competitions
express and communicate with each other. With these, ▪ (Type 7: contests/battles/competitive tasks) or
productivity is enriched. working together to create some product or
collective actions.
From these experiences, observations and studies of groups,
▪ (Type 8: performances/psychomotor tasks)
it would tell us that much of the work that people achieved
is because it is done in and within a group rather than by an Forsyth (2010) explained further that in
individual working alone. the study of McGrath presented above, he
pointed out the clear differences between
The Circumplex Model of Group Tasks
conceptual - behavioral goals and
It is a contextual taxonomy developed by Joseph E. cooperation – conflict goals. In his analysis, he tried to point
McGrath (1984, in Forsyth 2010). It orders group tasks in a out the following:

Page 3
BSY42 [2022-2023] Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
- Some of the goals that groups pursue require them aspects that would lead to either dismissal whether
to take actions (Tasks 1, 6, 7 and 8) voluntary or involuntary.
- Others focus on deliberation, for they require a
Sometimes this actually create conflicts and
conceptual review (Tasks 2, 3, 4 and 5)·Some of
misunderstanding between and among members. Thus,
the goals are purely collaborative ones – they
norms just like roles are also defined and sometimes
require that group members work together to
renegotiated.
accomplish their goals (Types 1, 3 and 8)
- Others goals in contrast, tend to pit in individuals 5. Unity
and/or groups against each other (Types 4, 5, 6
We move to the last but important characteristic of group
and 7)
which is, unity. This pertains to the solidarity, the
- Some groups perform tasks from nearly all of
interpersonal forces that binds them together as one group.
McGraths category whereas others concentrate
It is the so-called “we- ness” or “groupness” that creates
only one subset of goals.
a feeling of belongingness. This is what they call as group
3. Interdependence
cohesion. Group cohesion is defined as “the strength of the
Interdependence as defined is “the state of being
bonds linking individuals to and in the
dependent to some degree on other people, as when one’s
group.”
outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings and experiences are
determined in whole or in part by others.” Interestingly, in trying to illustrate further the meaning of
group cohesion, Forsyth (2010) explained from another
4. Group Structure
study that says:
By definition, group structure pertains to “the underlying
patterns of roles, norms and relations that organizes In physics, the molecular integrity of matter is known as
groups” (Forsyth, 2010). This definition would tell us of the cohesiveness. When matter is cohesive, the particles that
important aspects of the group structure which are roles, constitute it bond together so tightly that they resist any
norms and relations. competing attractions. But when matter is not cohesive, it
tends to disintegrate over time as the particles drift away
Aspects of a group structure.
or adhere to some other nearby object. Similarly, in human
Roles is defined as “A coherent set of behaviors expected groups, cohesion is the integrity, solidarity, and unity of a
of people who occupy specific positions within a group.” group. All groups require a modicum of cohesiveness, else
(Forsyth, 2010). This means that members of a group are the group would disintegrate and cease to exist as a group
expected to play specific functions as they were entrusted (Dion, 2000).
with certain positions. As further explained, “the roles of
It could be noted therefore from the above-mentioned the
leader and follower are fundamental ones in many groups,
importance of group cohesion for the members to stay
but other roles— seeker, information giver, information
together. This is an important determining factor so that
elaborator, encourager, compromiser, harmonizer—may
members would remain in the group.
emerge in any group (Benne & Sheats,1948 in Forsyth 2010)
Another important aspect of unity is entitativity, which
Norm which is defined as “A consensual and often implicit
means being viewed as one entity. Which as said to be
standard that describes what behaviors should and should
“described by Donald Campbell, the extent to which an
not be performed in a given context” (Forsyth, 2010).
assemblage of individuals is perceived to be a group rather
As one becomes a member of a group sometimes there are than an aggregation of independent, unrelated individuals;
defined behaviors that are expected of them but sometimes the quality of being an entity”
these are also implicitly defined. If one is a new member of
Entitativity as an aspect of unity is actually coming from the
a group, one tries to fulfil not only of his or her role as a
perception of the onlookers outside of the group itself. A
member of the group but also strives to observe the
group may not be very cohesive but from the eyes of the
standards of behavior that are set by the organization.
outsider they may be perceived as one. That the group as
Otherwise if he or she would not be able comply with those

Page 4
BSY42 [2022-2023] Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
they appear to be are so cohesive, therefore, this aspect NATURE OF GROUP DYNAMICS
depends on other people’s perception which is not part of
the group. What are Group Dynamics (GD)?
GD is defined as the interaction of the forces or energies of
This could be well understood in the photos being posted
the environment called process elements, which actively
at social media as an example. You may perhaps know of
influence the individual, the group, and the situation at any
families or couples or even friends who
point of time either in a threatening or accepting manner
in the photos may appear to be so closely bonded but you
(Ortigas, 2008). Forces or energies or process elements are
may have learned from an insider that this is not really so in
the things that each group member brings in the group.
the real-life situations. What I mean is, people may appear
They are likely to communicate them when they get in
as though they are one whether this be in photos or in public,
contact with others, which can affect the
and that is, how people might view them but them from the
behavior of others in the group. Few examples are attitudes,
group itself it may not always be the case.
beliefs, inner thoughts and feelings, values and manner of

Donald Campbell (1958a in Forsyth 2010), who is said to talking or communicating (verbal and non-verbal). In the

have coined the term entitativity in group talks about of the story, several group dynamics (forces or energies) were

factors that lead people to perceive this way. He said that illustrated.

group would send certain cues that would lead to the

the word dynamic comes from the Greek dynamikós, which
onlookers’ perception of entitativity that must be present in
means to be strong, powerful, and energetic. Dynamic
that particular group. These are the following:
implies the influence of forces that combine, sometimes

Common fate:· Do the individuals experience the same or smoothly but sometimes in opposition, to create

interrelated outcomes? continual motion and change. He then defined Group

dynamics as the influential interpersonal processes that
Similarity:· Do the individuals perform similar behaviors occur in and between groups over time. He further
or resemble one another? explained that these processes not only determine how
members relate to and engage with one another, but they
Proximity: How close together are the individuals in the
also determine the group’s inherent nature and trajectory:
aggregation?
meaning the actions the group takes, how it responds to its
SUMMARY: Characteristics of Groups are the following environment, and what it achieves. As an example, it was
mentioned that groups tend to become more cohesive over
1. Interaction Groups create, organize, and sustain
time. Larger groups tend to break down into smaller
relationship and task interactions among members
subgroups. While in most groups, one person is allowed to
2. Goals Groups have instrumental purposes, exert more influence over the other members. Even in the
for they facilitate the achievement of aims or outcomes most calm group conditions, misunderstandings can lead to
sought by the members prolonged conflicts. Why? Because these processes occur
with predictable regularity in groups.
3. Interdependence Group members depend on one
another, in that each member influences and is Influential interpersonal processes
influenced by each other member
▪ Formative processes - such as the need to belong to
4. Structure Groups are organized with each individual
and affiliate in groups, contextual factors that
connected to others in a pattern of relationships
promote the formation of groups, and the

5. Unity Groups are cohesive social arrangements development of group cohesion.

of individuals, that perceivers, in some cases, consider ▪ Influence processes – include aspects of group

as one unified whole. structure (norms, roles, relationships), conformity and

dissent, social power, obedience to group authority,
and leadership.

Page 5
BSY42 [2022-2023] Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
▪ Performance processes – such as group productivity, means that joining a group and participating in
social motivation, working in teams, and collaborative group activities does not guarantee that you
decision making. can become a “better person”. You see,
▪ Conflict processes – within groups— intragroup psychological well-being has many components
conflict and between groups— intergroup conflict. which must be met in order to attain it: personal
▪ Contextual processes - that are dependent on the growth, purpose in life, positive relations with
group’s physical setting and specific purpose, others, environmental mastery (the capacity to
including change-promoting groups and large effectively manage one’s life and environment),
collectives. and autonomy. These are too many to be
discussed and to be integrated in just one group
Kurt Lewin (1951) in Forsyth (2019) describes GD as the way
activity. I believe that it will take some time and
groups and individuals act and react to changing
its going to be a long process to attain
circumstances. Is there a difference between act and react?
psychological well-being.
Yes, there is. To react means to respond to a behavior
displayed by other people in a group, while act involves • GD is not the communication of certain rules or
your personal decision to do something as a member of a guidelines that enable individuals to develop the
group. GD is also considered as a field of inquiry dedicated skills needed for smooth and satisfying social
to advancing knowledge about the nature of groups, the interactions. This means that group dynamics is
laws of their development, and their interrelations with not geared towards teaching group members
individuals, other groups, and larger institutions (Cartwright some standards, on how they should interact
and Zander in Forsyth, 2019). In an article, they emphasized with each other while they are engaged in various
that when conducting a study about group, four main group activities.
questions that will help to achieve a good analysis must
include: "(a) What is the proper relation between data
• GD does not refer to a loose compilation of
collection and theory building? (b) What are the proper maxims concerning how groups should be

objects of study and techniques of observation? (c) What organized. Maxims is defined in Merriam-

are the basic variables that determine what happens in Webster dictionary as rule of conduct. So, to

groups'? (d) How can the many factors affecting group life simply put it, GD is not a compilation of rule of
conduct that will guide individuals on how
be combined into a comprehensive conceptual system?
groups must be formed.
Lastly, it is said to be an attempt to subject the many
aspects of groups to scientific analysis through the Group Dynamics: How It All Began
construction of theories and the rigorous testing of these
theories through empirical research. As a field of study, group dynamics, originates from both
psychology and sociology. It is still young compared to
GD can be described as a subject, a field dedicated to other fields of psychology since it has not reached a hundred
conduct empirical study about groups, it is the processes years from the time it was established. Although scholars
involved when individuals in a group start to communicate
have long contemplated the nature of groups, the first
with each other, it is the study of these processes, and the scientific studies of groups were not carried out until the
interaction of the forces (individual traits and 1900s (Cartwrightand Zander, 1968 in Forsyth, 2019).
characteristics) of the environment that influence group Moreover, it was said that its slow development was caused
members’ behavior.
partly by several unfounded assumptions about groups. Let
me inform you that the development of group dynamics in
What Group Dynamics Is Not
itself was a product of group process, as many theorists
1. It is said that GD is not a therapeutic suggested and disagreed on many ideas about how to study
perspective holding that psychological well- groups. Nevertheless, the process led to the paradigm in GD
being can be ensured through participation in which describe scientists’ shared assumptions about the
small groups guided by a skilled therapist. This phenomena they study (Kuhn in Forsyth, 2010). Some of

Page 6
BSY42 [2022-2023] Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
these assumptions that influenced their works about group representative of this perspective, argued that
include: group-level phenomena, such as the collective
conscious, simply did not exist. In 1924, Allport wrote
• Are groups real? It was mentioned that the dynamics
that “nervous systems are possessed by individuals;
of groups became a topic of critical concern for
but there is no nervous system of the crowd” (p. 5).
anthropology, psychology, sociology, and the other
He added, “Only through social psychology as a
social sciences in the late. In fact, sociologists
science of the individual can we avoid the
studying religious, political, economic, and
superficialities of the crowd mind and collective
educational social systems highlighted the role groups
mind theories” (p. 8). Because Allport believed that
played in maintaining social order. Anthropologists, on
“the actions of all are nothing more than the sum of
the other hand, as they studied different cultures,
the actions of each taken separately” (p. 5), he
discovered similarities and differences among the
thought that a full understanding of the behavior of
world’s small tribal groups. While political scientists’
individuals in groups could be achieved by studying
studies of political parties, voting, and public
the psychology of the individual group members. He
engagement led them to the study of small groups of
went on saying ”groups, , were not real entities. He
closely networked individuals. Psychologists like
is reputed to have said, “You can’t trip over a
Gustave Le Bon focused on studying how individuals
group.” Allport’s reluctance to accept such dubious
are changed when they join groups. Wilhelm Wundt
concepts as group-level mind helped ensure the
(1916), recognized as the founder of scientific
field’s scientific status. His hard-nosed attitude
psychology, also studied groups extensively.
forced researchers to ask some basic questions
Obviously, studies about groups were the result of
about groups and their influence on individual
combined efforts from different fields.
members and on society (see Focus 1.3).
· Level of analysis Theorists were found to be in
• Are groups more than the sum of their parts? The
disagreement when they were trying to find what
debate between individual-level and group-level
level of analysis to use in studying groups. Some
approaches diminished as theorists developed
favored an individual-level analysis approach to be
stronger models for understanding group-level
used in explaining the behavior of each group
process. One very influential theoretical analyses of
member, and to know if such psychological
groups is the Field theory introduced by Kurt Lewin.
processes as attitudes, motivations, or personality
Through the interactionism formula B = ƒ(P,E), he tried
were the true determinants of social behavior. Others
to explain how behavior of people in groups is
on one hand supported a group-level analysis that
determined by the interaction of the person and the
assumes each person is “an element in a larger
environment. Lewin believed that, because of
system, a group, organization, or society. As it
interactionism, a group is a Gestalt— a unified system
seems, researchers from the fields of sociology and
with emergent properties that cannot be fully
psychology differed in their preference of level of
understood by piecemeal examination. Adopting the
analysis in studying groups although they are
dictum, “The whole is greater than the sum of the
seeking answer for the same question , “Are groups
parts,” he maintained that when individuals merged
real? Sociological researcher like Emile Durkheim
into a group something new was created and that the
was inclined to use group-level analyses and
new product itself had to be the object of study. You
psychological researchers preferred the individual-
will learn more about this in the succeeding section of
level analysis. More to the point, group-level
the module.
researchers (sociologists) believed that groups and
• Are group processes real? It was stated that even the
the processes that occurred within them were
earliest researchers doubted the existence of a
scientifically authentic. Whilst, many psychologists
particular group-level concept groupmind (based on
who were interested in group phenomena questioned
the Century Dictionary refers to the collective mind of
the need to go beyond the individual to explain
a group) because this has little foundation. They
group behavior. Floyd Allport, the leading

Page 7
BSY42 [2022-2023]
particularly question the concept - group norm. As
defined in the previous lesson, a norm is a standard
that describes what behaviors should and should not
be performed in a group. Norms are not just individual
members’ personal standards, however, for they are
shared among group members. Further explanation
entails that only when members agree on a particular
standard does it function as a norm, so this concept is
embedded at the level of the group rather than at the
level of the individual. By the way, groupmind and
group norm are influential factors that can affect
group processes. The idea that a norm is more than
just the sum of the individual beliefs of all the
members of a group was noted to have been verified
by Muzafer Sherif in 1936. Through a study where in he
created norms by asking groups of men to state aloud
their estimates of the distance that a dot of light had
moved, he found: That the men gradually accepted a
standard estimate in place of their own idiosyncratic
judgments. He also found, however, that even when
the men were later given the opportunity to make
judgments alone, they still based their estimates on
the group’s norm. Moreover, once the group’s norm
had developed, Sherif removed members one at a time
and replaced them with fresh members. Each new
member changed his behavior, in time, until it
matched the group’s norm. He concluded by asking a
question, “If the individuals in the group are
completely replaceable, then where does the group
norm “exist”?, and through his statement, “It exists
at the group level rather than the individual level”
(MacNeil & Sherif, 1976).
• Are groups dynamics? Do groups deserve to be called
dynamic? Researchers already agreed that groups are
truly dynamic. This was illustrated in their research
findings. Let us explore them one by one. Groups
influence their members – Researchers have
concluded that groups have a profound impact on
individuals; they shape actions, thoughts, and feelings.
Some of these changes are subtle ones. Further
explanation conveys that moving from isolation to a
group context can reduce our sense of uniqueness, but
at the same time it can enhance our ability to perform
simple tasks rapidly. Norman Triplett and Charles
Horton Cooley proved the forgoing to be true through
the experimental studies that they conducted. You will
Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
get acquainted with these in the succeeding section of
this module. Another research finding which as
mentioned struck group psychologists was how groups
also change people more dramatically, specifically the
apparent madness of people when immersed in
crowds, which brought to the conclusion that the
behavior of a person in a group may have no
connection to that person’s behavior when alone. The
striking finding was confirmed in Stanley Milgram’s
(1963) classic studies of obedience. Milgram found
that most people placed in a powerful group would
obey the orders of a malevolent authority to harm
another person. Groups influence society - As stated,
while researchers were verifying the dramatic ways in
which groups influence individuals, they were at the
same time, studying societal structures and were
documenting the role that groups played in
maintaining religious, political, economic, and
educational systems in society. After the industrial
revolution, legal and political systems developed to
coordinate actions and make community-level
decisions. Organized religions provided answers to
questions of values, morality, and meaning.
Educational systems took over some of the teaching
duties previously assigned to the family. Economic
systems developed to regulate production and the
attainment of financial goals. All these social systems
were based, at their core, on small groups and
subgroups of connected individuals. Religious groups
provide a prime example. Individuals often endorse a
specific religion, such as Christianity or Islam, but their
connection to their religion occurs in smaller groups
and congregations. These groups are formally
structured and led by a religious authority, yet they
provide members with a sense of belonging, reaffirm
the values and norms of the group, and strengthen
bonds among members (Krause, N., 2006). At the
collective level, communities, organizations, and
society itself cannot be understood apart from the
groups that sustain these social structures. Groups Are
Living Systems - “A group, in a very real sense, is
alive”. It acquires energy and resources from its
environment, maintains its structure, and grows over
time (Arrow et al., 2005). A holistic perspective on
groups prompted researchers to examine how a group,
as a unit, changes over time. Some groups are so
Page 8
BSY42 [2022-2023]
stable that their basic processes and structures remain
unchanged for days, weeks, or even years, but such
groups are rare. This was observed in Bruce Tuckman’s
theory of group development. You will learn more
about this topic when we discuss this on the next
module.
To continue with the discussion of how Group Dynamics
began, let me present to you few psychologists who had
interest on the study of group. These include:
Wilhelm Wundt (1916) who although recognized as the
founder of scientific psychology, also studied groups
extensively. His book Völkerpsychologie is sometimes
translated as “folk psychology,” but others suggest that the
best translation is “group psychology.” Notice that the
combined elements of anthropology and psychology were
utilized in examining the conditions and changes displayed
by elementary social aggregates, and how group
memberships influence virtually all cognitive and perceptual
processes.
Gustave Le Bon (1895), a French psychologist also
contributed in the development of GD. His studies about
group focused on finding how individuals react in group
settings and how they are transformed when they join a
group. He also published his book Psychology of Crowds.
Norman Triplett (1898), in one of the earliest experimental
studies in the field confirmed the “discontinuity of people’s
responses when they are isolated rather than integrated”
(p.18). Triplett’s results were validated by other
experiments proving that other people, by their mere
presence, can change us. Groups can also change their
members by prompting them to change their attitudes and
values as they come to agree with the overall consensus of
the group (Newcomb, 1943 in Forsyth, 2010).
Bruce Tuckman (1965) is a social psychologist who also
participated in conducting researches to examine how a
group, as a unit, changes over time. His contribution in the
field is the theory of group development, which assumes
that most groups move through the five stages: forming,
storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. This will be
discussed in detail on the next module.
On the sociological side, studies of groups emerged during
the 50-year period from 1890 to 1940. One of the
sociologists who dedicated his time studying groups is Emile
Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
Durkheim (1897 – 1966). He argued that individuals who
aren’t members of friendship, family, or religious groups
can lose their sense of identity and as a result are more
likely to commit suicide. Durkheim strongly believed that
widely shared beliefs—what he called collective
representations—are the cornerstone of society, and further
suggested that large groups of people sometimes act with
a single mind. He also assumed that such groups, rather
than being mere collections of individuals in a fixed pattern
of relationships with one another, were linked by a unifying
collective conscious
Charles Horton Cooley (1909) is another sociologist who
wanted to better understand why human beings behave the
way they do. Through his work, he clarified that people
acquire their attitudes, values, identities, skills, and
principles in groups, and become practiced at modifying
their behavior in response to social norms and others’
requirements. He added that as children grow older their
peers replace the family as the source of social values
(Harris, 1995), and when they become adults, actions and
outlooks are then shaped by an even larger network of
interconnected (Barabási, 2003).
On the other hand, it is social psychologist Kurt Lewin’s
(1890-1947) theory in analyzing groups which became
influential in the study of group dynamics. Although many
argued, he is considered as the founder of the movement to
study groups experimentally. He is the one who chose the
word dynamic to describe the activities, processes,
operations, and changes that transpire in groups and coined
the term 'group dynamics' to describe the positive and
negative forces within groups of people. From Germany, he
migrated to the United States and became the professor and
director of the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He stayed in the
institution until his death in 1947. Being a person of “broad
humanitarian sympathies” (Ortigas, 2008, p.1) he
conducted numerous studies employing action research
investigation in his attempt to remedy some of the problems
confronting mankind. His studies resulted to the
construction of his Field Theory which play a significant role
in explaining how an individual member of a group must be
understood.
Page 9
BSY42 [2022-2023]
Field Theory
Lewin, through this theory contends that if you want to
understand a person, he must be seen in the light of how
she views the world (subjective reality), not merely in terms
of how the world really is (objective reality) (Ortigas, 2008).
Field theory defines field as totality of coexisting facts that
are conceived as mutually interdependent. It is premised
on the principle of interactionism, which assumes that the
behavior of people in groups is determined by the
interaction of the person and the environment. Lewin
summarizes this in the formula B = ƒ(P,E).In a group context,
the formula indicates that the behavior (B) of group
members is a function ( ƒ) of the interaction of their personal
characteristics (P) with environmental factors (E), which
include features of the group, the group members, and the
situation.
Let us go back to the story at the beginning of this module
and let us try to examine more the behavior of Jasper, so
that you will understand better the interactionism formula
of Lewin. What do you think affects the response of Jasper,
aside from her own insecurity as an older sister (personal
characteristic)? Could it be that she is expecting that her
groupmates would sympathize with her and would affirm
her that it is alright to shout at her younger sibling as a form
of discipline being the eldest child? Could it be that in
reality, she has a need to be affirmed (her own personal
characteristic) which on the other hand failed to be
recognized by her groupmates, because they have their own
preoccupation, or it is just not in their nature to give
affirmation (their own personality characteristic).
Unfortunately, this is part of Jasper’s environment which in
turn, interacted with her own personal characteristic.
Therefore, she felt judged and was hurt, causing her to be
quiet for the remainder of the session (behavior). What
happened to Jasper in relation to her group members clearly
illustrate Lewin’s interactionism formula, B = f(P, E) Lewin
further explained that whenever a group comes into
existence, it becomes a unified system with emergent
properties that cannot be fully understood by piecemeal
examination. Adopting the dictum, “The whole is greater
than the sum of the parts,” he maintained that when
individuals merged into a group something new was created
and that the new product itself had to be the object of
study. In the case of Jasper again, we will not be able to
understand her reactions fully if we will not include her
Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
environment (her group during the GD session, the group’s
atmosphere and the reactions of some group members) in
the analysis of what happened, hence, “the whole is greater
than the sum of the parts”. Moreover, if you are the
facilitator in Jasper’s group, you will take note of her
behavior and the behavior of her group members. You will
process what happened (new product that had to be the
object of study), making sure that Jasper and the rest of the
members (together) will understand how this occurrence
may affect their behavior for the remainder of the day’s
session, and the succeeding sessions as well. In processing
what happened, you don’t single out a member instead,
share to the whole group what you have observed while
sharing was going on, like the non-verbal reactions of the
group members since this is what most people usually are
unaware of, followed by what members might have said
(verbal) that could have affected or offended others in the
group. Through processing, facilitators can lead group
members toward “studying” aspects of group life which is
“object of study” To continue with Lewin’s explanation of
Field theory, he noted that a person’s environment makes
up her objective reality, which may or may not elicit
reactions from her. An environment that does not evoke a
response is what Lewin calls as objective environment.
When the objective environment on the other hand, does
evoke a response from the person, the objective reality
becomes part of the person’s subjective reality.
Consequently, to understand a person fully, one must
observe how she expresses her beliefs, values, and attitudes
in dynamic interaction with her environment. Going back to
Jasper, she allowed herself to be affected by her group
members (objective reality). At that moment, her group
members’ behavior became part of her subjective reality,
making her feel judged and hurt.
Fig. 1: The Individual’s Constant Interaction with her
Environment The Tension System
Another term that played a vital role in Lewin’ s theory is
tension system. A person whose needs are not satisfied or
whose intentions are not fulfilled is said to be in a state of
tension. However, an element that can relieve a tension may
be available within the psychological environment (e.g.
group a person belongs) which Lewin called as object. It can
be a goal, an activity, or a concrete object.
P a g e 10
BSY42 [2022-2023]
Valence
The quality in an object that makes the object of special
interest to the individual is called valence. If the person finds
the object as attractive and in effect results to approach
behavior, then it has a positive valence. While, a negative
valence evokes avoidance behavior.
Example: Imagine yourself as a transferee in your
block/section. Several times you initiated a conversation
with your classmates with a hope that you can make friends
with them. However, your effort has not been received
positively. You remained alone in your class and you felt out
of the group. Your classroom environment becomes a
negative valence. As a consequence, you will begin to
withdraw from your classmates (avoidance behavior). You
are now said to have “left the field”. Conversely, when your
classmates welcomed you with warmth, has accepted you
as part of the class and made friends with you, your class
environment becomes a positive valence. This friendly
environment will help you to draw closer to them, you will
become really participative and cooperative member of the
class (approach behavior)
Life Space
Lewin perceived of the person’s life as consisted of three
major regions:
• home life (life with your family and your relatives)
• professional life (at the moment your school life)
• social life (life with friends, acquaintances and
other people you are close with)
Each of the said region is said to be further divided into
subregions. Lewin’s theory has all of these regions and
subregions in constant interaction with one another. If you
will have an unattained goals or unfulfilled wishes/desires
in any of this region this will create a number of tensions. It
is mentioned that there may be times when tensions are
numerous and strong and at other times tensions will be few
and of little intensity (Ortigas, 2008).
Take a few moment to reflect about your experiences at
home. You might recall that not all days with your family are
filled with laughters and joy. There were moments when you
have arguments that led to a misunderstanding with your
siblings or with your parents (tension). However, your family
members would find ways to settle the conflict like sitting
Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
together and discussing the matter (positive valence). This
helped your family to return to how it used to be, where you
spend and enjoy time together (relieving the tension that
led to approach behavior).Think also of your past
experiences in school, times when you have a lot of school
requirements to do, when the deadline for submission was
already near and you felt like you wanted to give up
(tension). Then, a classmate of yours approached you and
offered her assistance to you (positive valence) and as a
result, you became motivated to accomplish your task
(approach behavior). Or there were also times, when
instead of helping you, a classmate came to you and asked
you for a favor, when you yourself was struggling with your
task (negative valence). You ended up discouraged and
helpless (avoidance behavior). Nonetheless, these school
experiences helped you to learn about important things as
a student and as a member of a class (group).Reflect also
about a moment in your life when you and your best friends
for years have encountered a problem which could have
been caused by jealousy, envy, unhealthy competition, etc.
(tension). Thinking about it might have brought back painful
feeling because you remembered that the issue wasn’t
resolved due to your friends unwillingness to make amend
(negative valence) yet, at the same time, might have made
you smile as you recalled how your friends have tried their
best effort to resolve the conflict (positive valence).
As you might have realized, the concepts of valence and
tension played a significant role in your own experiences of
being in a group. This is the same reason why valence and
tension were considered to be critical in the study of group
dynamics. If a group manifests attributes that are
attractive to an individual, it evokes an approach behavior
from her, while a threatening group environment may lead
to avoidance behavior in the individual.
Application of Group Dynamics
A multilevel perspective clarifies that many of the most
important aspects of human existence— including
individuals, organizations, communities, and cultures—
cannot be fully understood without an understanding of
groups. One may ask, how important is it to investigate
groups? Much of the world’s work is done by groups, so by
understanding groups we move toward making them more
efficient. The study of groups in the work setting has long
occupied business-oriented researchers, who are concerned
P a g e 11
BSY42 [2022-2023] Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
GROUP DYNAMICS
with the effective organization of people (Anderson, De Education Classroom groups; team teaching; class
Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004; Sanna & Parks, 1997). composition and educational outcomes Engineering Design
of human systems, including problem-solving teams; group
Social workers have also found themselves dealing with
approaches to software design
such groups as social clubs, gangs, neighborhoods, and
family clusters, and an awareness of group processes helped Mental health Therapeutic change through groups;
crystallize their understanding of group life. sensitivity training; training groups; self-help groups; group
psychotherapy
Educators were also influenced by group research, as were
many of the medical fields that dealt with patients on a Political science Leadership; intergroup and international
group basis. Many methods of helping people to change rely relations; political influence; power
on group principles. This is consistent with Lewin’s action
Psychology Personality and group behavior; problem
research.
solving; perceptions of other people; motivation; conflict
Lewin believed that there “is no hope of creating a better
Science and technology The science of team science;
world without a deeper scientific insight into the function of
creativity and collaborative discovery Social work Team
leadership and culture, and of other essentials of group life”
approaches to treatment; community groups; family
(1943,p. 113). To achieve this goal, he assured practitioners
counseling; groups and adjustment
that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” (1951,
p. 169) and charged researchers with the task of developing Sociology Self and society; influence of norms on behavior;
theories that can be applied to important social problems role relations; deviance
(Bargal, 2008). Researchers concluded that we spend our
Sports and recreation Team performance; effects of victory
entire life surrounded by and embedded in groups. Through
and failure; cohesion and performance
membership in groups, we define and confirm our values
and beliefs and take on or refine a social identity. When we
face uncertain situations, in groups we gain reassuring
information about our problems and security in
companionship. In groups, we learn about relations with
others, the type of impressions we make on others, and the
way we can relate with others more effectively.

Anthropology Groups in cross- cultural contexts; meetings

and gatherings; evolutionary perspectives

Architecture and design Planning spaces to maximize

group–environment fit; design of spaces for groups (e.g.,
offices, classrooms, theaters)

Business and industry Work motivation; productivity in

organizational settings; team building; goal setting;
management and leadership

Communication Information transmission in groups;

discussion; decision making; problems in communication;
networks

Computer Science Online groups and networks, computer-

based groups support systems, computer programming in
groups Criminal Justice Organization of law enforcement
agencies; gangs and criminal groups; jury deliberations

P a g e 12
BSY32 [2021-2022] Compiled by: Rogie-Ann M. Yumang
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
FINALS

FINALS

HATDOOOOG

P a g e 13